Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Corbitt

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided December 4, 2003No. 20020375-CAPublished

1ConcurrenceOrme, Judge

19 I concur fully in the court's opinion. I write separately only to highlight the incorrect use of legal terminology in the statute. I do so in the hope the controlling language of the statute will be corrected. That failing, I hope to make a record of the incorrect usage so that the peculiar meaning of the terms "special damages" and "general damages" as used in the restitution statute will not muddy the meaning of those terms in other contexts.

{20 Our restitution statute says that the "[plecuniary damages" that can be awarded are "all special damages, but not general damages." Utah Code…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Cohn v. JC Penney Company, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1975
  3. State v. McBrideCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1997
  4. Henderson v. For-Shor Co.Court of Appeals of Utah · 1988
  5. Marquette Cement Manufacturing Co. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1967

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API